CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 participants the contact details of persons still in the Sudan who could provide information on the events taking place there. He also participated regularly in conferences of JEM that were often attended by a large number of high-profile opponents. The complainant maintains that his activities for the group were of a regularity and frequency comparable to those of the person concerned in the A.A. v. Switzerland case. 8.5 The complainant maintains that, according to a decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 31 May 2013, 20 persons who speak critically against the Government or the authorities or about the situation in Darfur or who are suspected of supporting opposition groups are regularly monitored by the Sudanese authorities, including by the intelligence and security service. The role of the complainant within JEM is comparable to the activities described in that judgment and makes him likely to be monitored by the Sudanese Government. The complainant stresses that he was not merely seeking to acquire a political profile in order to obtain a residence permit, but that his commitment is genuine and real. 8.6 The complainant adds that, in the same decision, the Federal Administrative Court maintains that Sudanese nationals who return to the Sudan after an absence of several years should expect to be questioned by the Sudanese security authorities. Persons who have been in contact with an opposition group in Geneva and take a public stance against the Sudanese regime are systematically registered by the Sudanese authorities. Such persons are also systematically arrested once they return to their country of origin. In this regard, the complainant contends that he has participated in numerous political events of JEM, many of which have been documented by photographs. He adds that he has been publicly linked with JEM and thus has certainly been registered by the Sudanese authorities. Moreover, he has been in Switzerland for almost seven years, and so must in any case expect to be questioned if he were to return to his country. Furthermore, the Sudanese authorities had already registered him as a member of the opposition when he was detained in the Sudan. 8.7 The complainant concludes that, in the light of the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court and the European Court of Human Rights, his activities and role are sufficient to attract the attention of the Sudanese authorities and that, if he were to return there, he would be arrested and subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 8.8 He also refers to the fact that the Court emphasized in its interim decision of 19 February 2015 that the complainant had failed to explain why he had claimed to have a false nationality and used false documents in the first proceedings. The complainant explains that he did so because of his political activity in the Sudan. He was afraid of being persecuted by the Sudanese authorities outside the Sudan as they know his real name. He also submits that he felt a terrifying fear and believed he would be protected if he said he was Eritrean. He was poorly advised by a trafficker who said that he was more likely to be accepted as a refugee in Europe if he claimed to be Eritrean. The complainant indicates that, at the time, he was not familiar with the refugee system and asylum practices in Europe and so he trusted the trafficker who was supposed to know more about the subject. The complainant is now aware that his behaviour was unacceptable and would like once again to apologize to the Swiss authorities for having made false statements. 8.9 In respect of the State party’s argument that there were inconsistencies concerning his name in the evidence produced during the second asylum proceedings, the complainant explains that, at the hearing of 26 September 2014, he had already admitted to having given a false name during the first proceedings. He maintains that his true name is Aare Abdelkrim Abdalla Mohammed, which is the name on the JEM-Switzerland membership card. The names are the same, but had been spelled differently. 8.10 The complainant concludes that the State party would be violating his rights under article 3 of the Convention if it were to deport him to the Sudan. 20 10 Federal Administrative Court, judgment E-1979/2008, para. 10.5. GE.18-01489